Maybe detail these api. That said se can release 1.0 and do it in a 2.0.1.0 means impl is mature and most of users expect just the spec Le 17 sept. 2013 19:51, "Gerhard Petracek" <[email protected]> a écrit :
> @matt: +1 > > regards, > gerhard > > > > 2013/9/17 Matt Benson <[email protected]> > > > On Sep 17, 2013 12:30 PM, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Well for *spec* users it is not important Matt. > > > > > You are correct, but I still say (and I'm not the first) that we need to > > provide a stable API for those users who need to create custom extensions > > to BVal that require deeper integration than the specification can > provide. > > > > Matt > > > > > Le 17 sept. 2013 19:27, "Matt Benson" <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Albert Lee <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > Would it be feasible to release the current trunk content as > bval-1.0 > > and > > >> > create a branch as 1.0.x for anyone who has a need to continue with > > this > > >> > code base, then replace trunk with bval-1.1 content, which will > become > > the > > >> > on-going development code base. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> The problem with this approach as I see it is that we never thoroughly > > >> ironed out the APIs in trunk. Once we call it 1.0 we are fairly well > > >> committed to the Apache BVal APIs we have exposed, so it's important > to > > >> make those something we are all happy with. In any case I anticipate > we > > >> would have a 1.0.x branch, but for everything 1.x the APIs should be > > >> compatible IMO. > > >> > > >> Matt > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > BTW, is the bval-11 branch implementation completed and close to TCK > > >> > compliant. If not, what else are still missing? > > >> > > > >> > Thanks, > > >> > Albert > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Matt Benson <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi all, > > >> > > Romain has finished implementing Bean Validation 1.1 in his > branch > > [1]. > > >> > > Meanwhile we've still never reached 1.0 with our BV 1.0 > > implementation. > > >> > > There are a number of changes on the 1.1 branch that are broadly > > >> > > applicable and should probably be included in 1.0, but I am > honestly > > not > > >> > > confident that the broadly applicable changes can be conveniently > > sorted > > >> > > from the 1.1-specific changes. I therefore propose that we allow > > 1.1 to > > >> > > become the new trunk and devise some strategy for the exclusion of > > 1.1 > > >> > > features to create our 1.0 release (AIUI OWB does something > similar > > for > > >> > CDI > > >> > > specification versions so maybe Mark and Romain can help in that > > regard). > > >> > > > > >> > > Matt > > >> > > > > >> > > [1] https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/bval/branches/bval-11/ > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Albert Lee. > > >> > > > >
